• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Iowa 2008 Caucus Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
AmishNazi said:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Drugs.htm
Click to expand...

To be fair, that really doesn't say anything at all about his feelings on it.

I thought the other quote on there was pretty funny though.

Junkie. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection. And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism.
Click to expand...
 
080103_hillary_allensmith.jpg

about to cry :lol
 
Tamanon said:
I thought the other quote on there was pretty funny though.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like a man who will continue to demonize it though... least the lil green plant. :D

perfectchaos007 said:
Well I have seen many pre-polls in NH and all of them show RP with less in NH than Iowa. So it really doesn't look too good for RP in NH
Click to expand...

RP supporters were always going with the snowball effect and picking up in momentum in Iowa. I'm with you though I don't think only beating the canidate that didn't campaign there is a good sign.
 
Obama is an epic speaker. I really love that stuff.

The theme of 'change' can be a very effective campaign strategy too. In the recent Australian election John Howard, who after 11 years of being in office and running a very strong and prosperous economy was tossed out by the new guy, Kevin Rudd, who promised 'New Leadership'. It also helped that he too is a good speaker and also highly intelligent.

I really do hope Obama ends up winning this thing because it'd be good for America and it'd be good for the rest of us. Simple as that.
 
Somebody on MSNBC was mentioning how independents broke overwhelmingly for Obama in the democratic caucus, deflating Clinton's claims of electability.
 
It's amazing how much international attention this gets. It really goes to show the far reaching impact of this country and the stretch of Americanization.
 
Obama was always my first choice but I was resigned to the fact that Hillary will win it.

But boy, that speech reminds me of one of those speeches people will play 20, 30, 40 years from now. That was exhilarating.

"Change" as a campaign slogan is really proving very effective, imo. America is ready for a "cool" president, ya know?
 
teiresias said:
The Log Cabin Republicans (gay republican organization for anyone who doesn't know) had better wake up and smell the coffee this election cycle. If the party seriously nominates Huckabee then I don't give a crap what kind of economic policy you favor, you have no business supporting a party that will nominate someone that quite frankly thinks you're hell-bound scum with no business even existing.

They can throw around all the rhetoric they want about the "party being hijacked" by evangelicals and other nonsense, that just means the party is broken, and broken beyond repair.
Click to expand...
what this guy said. :/

goddamn, whats with the hillary hate?
 
Obama's speech may not have had much substance in it, but it's a victory speech in front of screaming fans. Play to the emotions and he did. Emotion plays such a huge part in all of this, and Obama has it in abundance compared to his opponents.

And that's why he's gonna win. Not just the nomination but the White House. It feels like Clinton in '92 again, this coming from someone who was old enough to vote in '92 and even went to a few Clinton campaign rallies. Hillary and Edwards come off like tired, lifeless career politicians in comparison to Obama's big sweeping messages of change and history being made. He's exciting, new and seemingly has endless promise. EXACTLY like many of us felt when hearing Bill in 1992.

Next prez. Mark it.
 
VALIS said:
Obama's speech may not have had much substance in it, but it's a victory speech in front of screaming fans. Play to the emotions and he did. Emotion plays such a huge part in all of this, and Obama has it in abundance compared to his opponents.

And that's why he's gonna win. Not just the nomination but the White House. It feels like Clinton in '92 again, this coming from someone who was old enough to vote in '92 and even went to a few Clinton campaign rallies. Hillary and Edwards come off like tired, lifeless career politicians in comparison to Obama's big sweeping messages of change and history being made. He's exciting, new and seemingly has endless promise. EXACTLY like many of us felt when hearing Bill in 1992.

Next prez. Mark it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Edwards just need to drop out, and soon, to seal the deal. Hillary is still a formidable beast.
 
Okay this is getting serious now guys. Where the hell are the last 4% of the precincts for the Republican side, and why haven't they reported!? It's going on 3 am over in Iowa. geez
 
perfectchaos007 said:
Okay this is getting serious now guys. Where the hell are the last 4% of the precincts for the Republican side, and why haven't they reported!? It's going on 3 am over in Iowa. geez
Click to expand...
No one cares if republicans votes go uncounted.

...really no one cares. The media only seems to pick up on this issue when it hits an urban area, or a minority base.
 
avatar299 said:
No one cares if republicans votes go uncounted.

...really no one cares. The media only seems to pick up on this issue when it hits an urban area, or a minority base.
Click to expand...

But it actually is relevant this time for deciding third place. Thompson and McCain are neck and neck, so they can't just let those vote be lost forever.
 
VALIS said:
Obama's speech may not have had much substance in it, but it's a victory speech in front of screaming fans. Play to the emotions and he did. Emotion plays such a huge part in all of this, and Obama has it in abundance compared to his opponents.

And that's why he's gonna win. Not just the nomination but the White House. It feels like Clinton in '92 again, this coming from someone who was old enough to vote in '92 and even went to a few Clinton campaign rallies. Hillary and Edwards come off like tired, lifeless career politicians in comparison to Obama's big sweeping messages of change and history being made. He's exciting, new and seemingly has endless promise. EXACTLY like many of us felt when hearing Bill in 1992.

Next prez. Mark it.
Click to expand...

But Obama's voting record is almost exactly the same as Hillary's...
 
kame-sennin said:
But Obama's voting record is almost exactly the same as Hillary's...
Click to expand...
Hillary is a stooge for the medical insurance companies now. Plus if you will stay with a man who repeatedly cheats on you, that goes a long way to saying something negative about your character.

Don't get me wrong I loved Bill as a president, BUT if that was my significant other we'd so be done.
 
This was written this morning, before the voting lolz
DES MOINES, Iowa — Are there really three tickets out of Iowa?

Will the media really have the time, space or inclination to pay attention to anyone who doesn’t win or come in second here Thursday night?

Candidates like to talk about how winning “gold, silver or bronze” or “first class, business or coach” is enough. But in Iowa, a third-place finish has almost always been a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

You can hate the idea of one small state being able to dash presidential dreams, but that is usually the case here. (In 1988 there was an exception: Both Democrat Mike Dukakis and Republican George H.W. Bush came in third in Iowa but went on to win their party’s nomination.)

Even second place sometimes is not good enough in Iowa. Ask John Edwards. He came in second here in 2004 and expected that “bounce” to help him win in New Hampshire. But it didn’t.

Why? The media had a better story. They had Howard Dean’s scream.

As Edwards’ then-campaign manager Nick Baldick put it: “Instead of headlines that said, ‘Kerry Wins, Edwards a Surprising Second’ it was all about [John] Kerry winning and the Dean speech. We were the seventh paragraph. That did not give us a New Hampshire bounce.”

And Edwards might face the same problem this time. If he comes in second and Barack Obama comes in first, the headline could be: “Obama Wins, Hillary Third.”

Top-tier candidates probably will not drop out if they don’t do well in Iowa. The New Hampshire primary is just five days later, and most of the money for that is already spent. Also there are back-to-back Republican and Democratic debates on Saturday night, which provides free TV time.

But certain candidates might find themselves otherwise starved for oxygen in New Hampshire. Media resources are being stretched thin right now and many news outlets are looking forward to a smaller field to cover.

The trick for candidates is to exceed media expectations. If you can do better than expected, you might be able to earn a continuing look — even if it is just a glance — from the press.

Each party has a different set of expectations this time.

Republican John McCain has been trying to thread the needle in Iowa, spending enough time to snatch third place without spending enough time to make it look as if he were really trying to win.

And McCain actually could convert a bronze in Iowa into gold in New Hampshire.

Greg Mueller, who has worked in a number of Republican presidential campaigns, but is unaligned now, says there are others who may beat expectations.

“If Fred Thompson comes in third in Iowa, he gets a ticket to New Hampshire,” Mueller said. “And Ron Paul, with that energy and passion, is a wild card.”

On the Democratic side, the field may be cut down immediately.

“There aren’t three tickets out of Iowa for Democrats,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster and strategist who worked for Kerry in 2004 and is unaligned now. “If Hillary Clinton wins, I think the race is over.”

But what if she doesn’t win?

“If Barack Obama wins and Hillary Clinton is second or third, she could still win the nomination, but it would be a tough fight for her,” he said. “And Edwards has to win Iowa. If he comes in third in Iowa — or even second — he is dead.”

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who isn’t backing any candidate, put it this way: “What is unique about this cycle is that each candidate has a different strategy to obtain the nomination. But exceeding media expectations is part of every strategy."
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/

Pretty spot on. The media attention is going to be key given the small amount of time left until the NH primary. Obama is going to get much of that attention, and you can expect a lot of stories straight out of his autobiography to be all over the news, plus more coverage of his policies. The second (or first?) story is going to be what happened to Hillary. For months she was the undisputed front runner, an aura of inevitability over her head. Now all that is gone; and if she attacks Obama, or better yet if Bill attacks Obama, I'd expect the media to rush to his aid with "as Hillary Clinton's campaign begins to unravel..." story headings.

So where does Edwards fit in? His supporters seem far more inclined to be in Obama's camp than Hillary's, and I could see him losing many points to Obama in NH. Most likely he's going to come in third there, giving the media the green light to frame the rest of the primary season as a two person race.
 
Not so sure about the "small fraction of" quip, but my favorite summary of the night:

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: Iowa has given its seal of approval to (1) a one-term Senator who stands for "hope" and "change" and (2) a tacky, big spending governor who doesn't know much about foreign policy but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. The common demoninator here, other than a patent lack of qualifications for the presidency, is likeability.

Well done, (small fraction of) Iowa.
Click to expand...

After this hyped-up circus, Iowa is looking much less relevant and Giuliani's strategy of not getting involved is starting to look much smarter than it did previously.
 
kame-sennin said:
But Obama's voting record is almost exactly the same as Hillary's...
Click to expand...

ToxicAdam said:
Politics is more about perception than reality.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is. That's why I'm saying Obama wins. However his record or his policies or his plans stack up to the others, it's not going to matter as much as the aesthetics, where he beats everyone else into the ground. In a time when a lot of people are looking for something new, or at least the appearance of something new, he couldn't be any more suitable.

Contrast Hillary Clinton, former first lady and long time political player, stressing a message for change compared to Barack Obama, African-American, fresh faced politically, making rousing speeches in front of screaming young people. It's a landslide. All he needed was that spark of credibility to give other voters confidence, and he has it now.
 
AmishNazi said:
Hillary is a stooge for the medical insurance companies now. Plus if you will stay with a man who repeatedly cheats on you, that goes a long way to saying something negative about your character.

Don't get me wrong I loved Bill as a president, BUT if that was my significant other we'd so be done.
Click to expand...

Barrack Obama isn't? He isn't even guaranteeing health care for all Americans, and neither he nor Hillary are challenging the insurance companies on anything. They are both content to let insurance companies charge people an ass-load of money for procedures, and the only solution either Barrack or Hillary has come up with is to have the government subsidize the health care industries price gouging. I agree with you that Hillary is a slave to the health care special interests, but my question again is, how is Obama different? It seems as though he's just a better speaker.

I ignored the rest of your post because I fail to see the relevance.
 
All things being equal, why shouldn't the better speaker get it? And man, I'm just now listening to the speechs and it's hilarious how much Hilary comes off as "Hay Me Too".
 
Layla Kaylee on G4 just said "Ron Paul"

omg that was hawt. lol.

anyway she was just reporting that Ron Paul won the Myspace primary for GOP. Over 100,000 votes were cast not bad. But I bet most of those myspace voters aren't even legal to vote.
 
VALIS said:
Absolutely it is. That's why I'm saying Obama wins. However his record or his policies or his plans stack up to the others, it's not going to matter as much as the aesthetics, where he beats everyone else into the ground. In a time when a lot of people are looking for something new, or at least the appearance of something new, he couldn't be any more suitable.

Contrast Hillary Clinton, former first lady and long time political player, stressing a message for change compared to Barack Obama, African-American, fresh faced politically, making rousing speeches in front of screaming young people. It's a landslide. All he needed was that spark of credibility to give other voters confidence, and he has it now.
Click to expand...

It's the Jed Bartlett Factor. Part of the appeal of watching The West Wing, especially in the time when it aired, was this insane fantasy of a likeable president who, every week, was committed to improving America, whose staff was committed to their jobs and knew that they were pretty much the most important jobs on Earth. You'd watch it and you'd think, "MAN, I don't think I've seen anyone feel that way about the presidency in years. It's just shuffling fucking blame around and dodging shit. It's not about America or what America is supposed to be about." Remember that episode when Jed's campaigning and there's that Pipe Bombing and he gives this fucking specTACULAR speech, maybe the best one in the show's history, and you're like "Man, I don't think I've ever heard a president talk like that or act like that, at least in my lifetime." It wasn't about fear or bullshit, it was about America and hope. And every week you'd visit this fantasy land and then turn on the news and see what new thing Bush clapped up and watch Jon Stewart continue on his meteoric rise to embracing the same inflammatory numb stupidity, just on the other side of the fence and it was this non-stop game of Dueling Banjos.

For like eight years.

Last night was the first time I can remember when I saw and heard someone who wasn't at all like that. It was a speech that could have only been written by Sam Seaborn or Toby Ziegler. It was something that I'd honestly never expected to see from a presidential candidate in real life.

In short, it was the first presidential thing I'd seen on television in over eight years that wasn't completely made up by a drug addict.

And I doubt I'm the only one got that impression.
 
Xeke said:
It's amazing how much international attention this gets. It really goes to show the far reaching impact of this country and the stretch of Americanization.
Click to expand...

i really hate it when people say this. if "Americanization" is so bad for the world, then why does everyone embrace it? better yet, why do they all move here? i'm sure the people of Darfur, Sudan, or any of those ass-fucked places would kill (literally) for a dollar Big Mac and a Walmart.
 
v1cious said:
i really hate it when people say this. if "Americanization" is so bad for the world, then why does everyone embrace it? better yet, why do they all move here? i'm sure the people of Darfur, Sudan, or any of those ass-fucked places would kill (literally) for a dollar Big Mac and a Walmart.
Click to expand...

Ignorant and offensive. Impressive.
 
Xeke said:
It's amazing how much international attention this gets. It really goes to show the far reaching impact of this country and the stretch of Americanization.
Click to expand...

I think it's more exhaustion with the current US administration, and the next president is the only real hope for a real change in US int'l policy.

I really don't think other primaries in the past got this much int'l coverage.

really hate it when people say this. if "Americanization" is so bad for the world, then why does everyone embrace it? better yet, why do they all move here? i'm sure the people of Darfur, Sudan, or any of those ass-fucked places would kill (literally) for a dollar Big Mac and a Walmart.
Click to expand...

why do people want to move to the US? Because it has the world's biggest economy due to its large population/land area. All the rest are simply trickle down effects (education system). Everything you've suggested (big mac/walmart and so many other things) are unfortunate consequences.

I'm very very ambivilent about 'americanization'/westernization.
 
tnw said:
I think it's more exhaustion with the current US administration, and the next president is the only real hope for a real change in US int'l policy.

I really don't think other primaries in the past got this much int'l coverage.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
It's the Jed Bartlett Factor. Part of the appeal of watching The West Wing, especially in the time when it aired, was this insane fantasy of a likeable president who, every week, was committed to improving America, whose staff was committed to their jobs and knew that they were pretty much the most important jobs on Earth. You'd watch it and you'd think, "MAN, I don't think I've seen anyone feel that way about the presidency in years. It's just shuffling fucking blame around and dodging shit. It's not about America or what America is supposed to be about." Remember that episode when Jed's campaigning and there's that Pipe Bombing and he gives this fucking specTACULAR speech, maybe the best one in the show's history, and you're like "Man, I don't think I've ever heard a president talk like that or act like that, at least in my lifetime." It wasn't about fear or bullshit, it was about America and hope. And every week you'd visit this fantasy land and then turn on the news and see what new thing Bush clapped up and watch Jon Stewart continue on his meteoric rise to embracing the same inflammatory numb stupidity, just on the other side of the fence and it was this non-stop game of Dueling Banjos.

For like eight years.

Last night was the first time I can remember when I saw and heard someone who wasn't at all like that. It was a speech that could have only been written by Sam Seaborn or Toby Ziegler. It was something that I'd honestly never expected to see from a presidential candidate in real life.

In short, it was the first presidential thing I'd seen on television in over eight years that wasn't completely made up by a drug addict.

And I doubt I'm the only one got that impression.
Click to expand...

Well said. Every two years people trot out the "voters elect people based on superficialities rather than the issues!" sour grapes, without seeming to realize that it's human nature to relate to people in emotional ways. You pick an insurance plan based on nothing but cold, hard facts. Same with buying a computer. But with people, whether it's a girlfriend or a presidential candidate, a lot of your decision making is going to be emotional and visceral. Obama inspires and talks a big game, which is very appealing. Especially now. The president is the figurehead of our communal lives, and it shouldn't be so surprising that people vote largely based on the personality and the direction the candidate exudes moreso than the specifics.

Besides which, everyone who's paid attention should realize that the platforms candidates run on are just that. They're plans. Hopeful courses of action. But how often do these things pan out? You can vote for someone on their health insurance and tax restructuring plans, which they never get through congress, and then what?

Which of course is not to say the specifics are trivial or anything like that, but people grousing every two years that politics is more personality than issues are being naive.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
It's the Jed Bartlett Factor. Part of the appeal of watching The West Wing, especially in the time when it aired, was this insane fantasy of a likeable president who, every week, was committed to improving America, whose staff was committed to their jobs and knew that they were pretty much the most important jobs on Earth. You'd watch it and you'd think, "MAN, I don't think I've seen anyone feel that way about the presidency in years. It's just shuffling fucking blame around and dodging shit. It's not about America or what America is supposed to be about." Remember that episode when Jed's campaigning and there's that Pipe Bombing and he gives this fucking specTACULAR speech, maybe the best one in the show's history, and you're like "Man, I don't think I've ever heard a president talk like that or act like that, at least in my lifetime." It wasn't about fear or bullshit, it was about America and hope. And every week you'd visit this fantasy land and then turn on the news and see what new thing Bush clapped up and watch Jon Stewart continue on his meteoric rise to embracing the same inflammatory numb stupidity, just on the other side of the fence and it was this non-stop game of Dueling Banjos.

For like eight years.

Last night was the first time I can remember when I saw and heard someone who wasn't at all like that. It was a speech that could have only been written by Sam Seaborn or Toby Ziegler. It was something that I'd honestly never expected to see from a presidential candidate in real life.

In short, it was the first presidential thing I'd seen on television in over eight years that wasn't completely made up by a drug addict.

And I doubt I'm the only one got that impression.
Click to expand...
*applause*

Really, great fucking post, Ben. And VALIS's too.
 
VALIS said:
Well said. Every two years people trot out the "voters elect people based on superficialities rather than the issues!" sour grapes, without seeming to realize that it's human nature to relate to people in emotional ways. You pick an insurance plan based on nothing but cold, hard facts. Same with buying a computer. But with people, whether it's a girlfriend or a presidential candidate, a lot of your decision making is going to be emotional and visceral. Obama inspires and talks a big game, which is very appealing. Especially now. The president is the figurehead of our communal lives, and it shouldn't be so surprising that people vote largely based on the personality and the direction the candidate exudes moreso than the specifics.

Besides which, everyone who's paid attention should realize that the platforms candidates run on are just that. They're plans. Hopeful courses of action. But how often do these things pan out? You can vote for someone on their health insurance and tax restructuring plans, which they never get through congress, and then what?

Which, of course is not to say the specifics are trivial or anything like that, but people grousing every two years that politics is more personality than issues is pretty naive.
Click to expand...

And I just read somewhere, some blog comment, that a President who wins on broad appeal more than issues has a better mandate for change anyway. Because these things get hammered out in compromises with other government branches anyway.

I want to see someone who actually seems like he represents the people and what this country is supposed to be about.

Well put.
 
kame-sennin said:
Barrack Obama isn't? He isn't even guaranteeing health care for all Americans, and neither he nor Hillary are challenging the insurance companies on anything. They are both content to let insurance companies charge people an ass-load of money for procedures, and the only solution either Barrack or Hillary has come up with is to have the government subsidize the health care industries price gouging. I agree with you that Hillary is a slave to the health care special interests, but my question again is, how is Obama different? It seems as though he's just a better speaker.

I ignored the rest of your post because I fail to see the relevance.
Click to expand...

He didn't craft a decent and effective plan for the American people and then give up on it like it was a runt baby on a pig farm. He also didn't come out and say that the reason that his first plan failed was because he didn't get the support of the insurance companies.

Hillary makes nice speeches too. Most of us have trouble believing a word that comes out of her mouth. Barack hasn't proven himself to be someone to back down from a unpopular decision like our former first lady has. She'll do anything for power, even forgive a man who continually stomps on her. You really want to give the highest position in the country to someone who will back down that easily?
 
v1cious said:
i really hate it when people say this. if "Americanization" is so bad for the world, then why does everyone embrace it? better yet, why do they all move here? i'm sure the people of Darfur, Sudan, or any of those ass-fucked places would kill (literally) for a dollar Big Mac and a Walmart.
Click to expand...
wow
 
Macam said:
Ignorant and offensive. Impressive.
Click to expand...


well say what you will, but apparently we're doing something right if everyone keeps riding our coattails, not to mention we're always the first ones they call when shit goes down. in my opinion, we should continue to "americanize" countries. installing major conglomerates in third world nations would not only cut down on at least some of the aid we provide every year, but it would also create jobs and revenue. i'm as liberal as they come, but these people need to saved from themselves.
 
Sigh...so depressing. Where are the [classical] liberals at home and liberal interventionalists abroad? Is Fred Thompson the only one even close? I'm not voting for DA.

I don't remember where I signed up for more slow creep of fascism.
 
v1cious said:
well say what you will, but apparently we're doing something right if everyone keeps riding our coattails, not to mention we're always the first ones they call when shit goes down. in my opinion, we should continue to "americanize" countries. installing major conglomerates in third world nations would not only cut down on at least some of the aid we provide every year, but it would also create jobs and revenue. i'm as liberal as they come, but these people need to saved from themselves.
Click to expand...

You topped your last post. Congratulations.

Not a set of values you should be proud incidently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Sailor moon Thread
2
84
380
uncreativename replied
Unhinged Bios Official Thread
10
483
SJRB replied
  • Locked
Can we has back our Iran thread?
2 3
100
2K
LearnandBurn replied
NBA Thread 2026: There will be ballin'
2 3 4 5 6
258
4K
Ipsi replied
2025 | The yearly positive thread
3
408
DKehoe replied
Top Bottom